Abstract
The syntheses of the organometallic complexes RCo(DBPh 2) 2(MeCN), where R = Me ( 1), n-Pr ( 2), trans-β-styryl (β-Sty, 3), and MeCo (DBPh 2) 2TCNE ( 4) are described. The complexes were characterized by X-ray crystallography. Compound 1 is monoclinic, space group P2 1/n, a = 9.081(2), b = 14.491(3), c = 14.178(3) A ̊ , β = 95.35(2)°, Z = 2, R = 0.053 compound 2 is monoclinic, space group P2 1/a, a = 18.973(6), b = 9.369(2), c = 21.059(6) A ̊ , β = 106.65(2)°, Z = 4, R = 0.079 ; compound 3 is monoclinic, space group P2 1/n, a = 15.130(2), b = 16.055(3), c = 15.591(3) A ̊ , β = 91.70(1)°, Z = 0.071 ; compound 4 is triclinic, space group P I, a = 15.390(6), b = 15.529(7), c = 18.038(7) A ̊ , α = 107.44(2)°, β = 103.54(2)°, γ = 101.19(2)°, Z = 4, R = 0.058 . Compound 1 is found to have an up-down conformation of the equatorial ligand, with one phenyl group facing the Me axial ligand and the other facing the axial MeCN ligand, whereas compounds 2–4 in the solid state show the down-down conformation, with the two axial phenyls of the equatorial ligand facing the neutral one. The present results sshow that the conformation adopted by these complexes is determined primarily by the difference in bulk between the axial ligands. When the bulk of R is similar to that of L. the π = π interactions become the conformational driving force.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.